If a person is wrongly convicted and released from prison do you think that they are still guilty?

[exitseven]

Usually they get released because of a legal technicality and the real criminal was not found.

[Effably]

I grew up around police. Typically it is fairly clear when someone is and is not guilty. It isn't as if a coin a tossed for a verdict but rather it has to be (almost) without doubt. My point here is that to the involved it is typically very clear if a person is or is not guilty. And so if someone gets out it is also very clear if it was due to their innocence being proven or a techniality somewhere. If involved I'd have this knowledge and judge based on it.

To the vast majority of cases where I am not involved I adamantly adhere to the actual verdict. If someone is released and believed innocent they are to be treated and viewed as innocent. Anything else would make our whole system monstrously oppressive.

[JCrockett]

Silly question. It obviously is entirely (and I do mean absolutely 100% completely), dependent on the individual circumstance.

On what grounds were they convicted? On what grounds were they exonerated or released? Do I know or believe anything different from the official judgement?

What I can say simply is that my personal opinion about guilt or innocence is not directly tied to the official conviction. I am not the penal system, and I keep my own counsel regarding justice.

[purplepoppy]

There's a big difference between being innocent and getting off with it. As far as I'm concerned if he's let off on a technicality he's still guilty

[DizzyDesii]

I dont really hold anything against em if i dont know em personally

[DaveToo]

The legal system isn't always just. Sometimes, when a prosecutor makes a mistake, or a judge does, a criminal can be released into society once again. This is dangerous to society. We don't agree with the decision, but rights are rights for everyone or they're not for anyone.

[ChrisMaster69]

Wrongly convicted implies they were innocent and did not do it, in that case they are innocent.

Off top of my head I can’t think of many released due to technicality.

They usually don’t go to prison if there is a technicality to get them off.

if it’s a technicality, invariably they are still guilty.

[msc545]

No, they were never guilty in the first place. However, they may not be innocent either. The ability of the legal system to actually determine truth is very limited.

[exitseven]

yes, maybe the criminal's lawyer was able to able to find a legal loophole and his client gets released. Meanwhile a criminal gets togo free.

[msc545]

Or maybe his rights were violated by police lying about him and an innocent mans goes free.

[ZackBan]

The term gulity is a human construct crimes are only crimes because we have a general consensus on what we tolerate and we don't.

And by the same token they would not be guilty, they could still be the person that did something but only the law decides guilty and innocent it's unbiased and doesn't act on emotions like so many these days want it to

[humanearth]

I have read many stories of innocent people being sent to jail for 30 years and found out after years later they were really innocent.

Like murder cases before DNA testing

The cops, and the courts just wanted to pin the crime to anyone.

From what I hear or what I think I heard is that habeas corpus don't exist anymore. So they can lock you up without reason now.

I should really look more into that habeas corpus law.

[tartaarsaus]

Depends. If someone is released from prison because public prosecutors overstepped boundaries in gathering evidence, clearly the person is guilty but cannot be ruled as such and should be freed. Alternatively, sometimes people are freed because they were convicted on the basis of DNA, which later ends up being possible to interpret in different ways as well. Then that person is innocent

[Jamie05rhs]

When was anyone ever wrongfully convicted on DNA? I've only heard of people being exonerated by DNA.

[tartaarsaus]

Happened in a Dutch murder case once where someone was convicted on the basis of DNA. Fast forward like 10 years later, new DNA techniques showed the DNA evidence was possible to interpret in multiple ways, which collapsed the “beyond reasonable doubt” claim of the prosecutor and therefore was exonerated

[tartaarsaus]

Also why these days DNA is typically not enough in the Dutch judicial system to sentence someone to any sentence

[Jamie05rhs]

But it's either the suspect's DNA or it's not. I mean, that's pretty cut and dry.

[tartaarsaus]

DNA can be more than just a trace of someone present at a location. They used the evidence to show someone murdered someone. Except later techniques showed that that DNA does not necessarily prove they did said crime. Hence, exonerated

[Jamie05rhs]

Oh, okay. Well, then that's absolutely correct.

[TrueConfection]

If they were wrongly convicted, I will give them the benefit of the doubt.

[Flower7]

N oh, I would believe that they were innocent from the beginning. Mistakes are made all the time in the legal system.

[Astarlessnightsky]

Innocent until proven guitly!

So unless there is proof of him/her being guilty, he/she is innocent.

[loveslongnails]

If you were wrongly convicted and there's evidence to prove it, why would I think they were still guilty? I may not have thought they were guilty to begin with, but if there's proof they were not, then it's over.

[NathanDavis]

I know plenty of criminals that have not even been prosecuted... lol

[Wiredone]

They are innocent until proven guilty. If they were wrongly accused and evidence backs it up then they are innocent. They should also be compensated for wrongful imprisonment.

[AngelMegumin]

If a person is WRONGLY convicted, it is a literal definition of an innocent.

[Snakeyes7]

No, if they have been released from prison because proof of their innocence has arisen then it stands to reason that they weren't guilty in the first place.

[Andres77]

No... their record should be expunged.
There might be more details but this is the base answer.

[WhatThaPhucc]

there's noway of knowing 100 percent the truth, u may be suspiscious but they could be copletely innocent

[Jamie05rhs]

If they're not guilty, then they're not guilty.

If they're guilty but they got off on a technicality, then it's usually pretty obvious.

[OddBeMe]

Actually most of the time, it’s proven that they didn’t do it. Via dna. So imagine how many more innocent lives in prison.

[Anonymous]

I only think someone is guilty if they are legally guilty, otherwise they are innocent.

[ChkltCat]

Only law has its eyes blindfolded

[Anonymous]

Nope if it is proven 1000% that they are innocent than no I don’t believe they are still guilty